Forget there being no peace for the wicked, there doesn’t seem to be much tranquillity for the pious either. A controversy that lay forgotten for many blissful months has been pulled out of the closet, dusted down and thrown back in our faces. The cartoon protests are back on the agenda, thanks both to the newspapers’ decision to reprint the material and to the sadly predictable reaction of the faithful.

So what about media freedom, then? Does it include a news anchor’s right to negotiate with militants holed up in Lal Masjid? Does it include a journalist’s right to question the president about decisions that affect the very fabric of the country? Is the media, local or international, to operate under fear of reprisals by either the state or private individuals or groups? Shutting news channels down without having gone through the requisite legal processes, forcing newspapers to publish the writings of pro-government plants and hacking into YouTube count as reprisals by the state. Threats of being murdered or being blackmailed by the clear and present danger of violent protests are reprisals by private citizens.

Given that a plot to murder one of the original cartoonists was recently uncovered, it is not surprising that the Danish editors chose to reprint the material. Their very valid point was that they refused to operate under threat, and they were well within their rights to make it. But did they nevertheless behave irresponsibly? Perhaps yes, to some extent, for the action was bound to provoke violence.

However, far more irresponsible were the protestors who killed their own people on Feb 14, 2006, in Lahore over the same issue. And, to a somewhat lesser extent, Iran, which commissioned the tit-for-tat Holocaust International Cartoon Contest, since two wrongs don’t make a right (although it is worth noting that a Danish newspaper, Information, printed them without invoking violent protests), and the Sunni Tehrik workers in Karachi on Friday, who used the issue in an attempt to reclaim some relevance in a post-election political scenario were they are rather besides the point.

Media freedom is a nebulous concept that varies from situation to situation. The media have the right, in fact the duty, to inform and expand the debate. But along with that goes the need to choose one’s words and subjects carefully, keep in mind the public good and refrain from compromising people’s safety.

Both these aspects can not only co-exist but can lead to more sophisticated and nuanced journalism.

As Jon Williams pointed out recently on the BBC Editors’ Blog, there exists a tacit agreement between media bodies and law enforcement organisations over reporting on kidnap cases and hostage situations while negotiations are under way, in case the release becomes more difficult. In return the authorities put the full story on the record once the situation is resolved. “When lives are at risk,” he wrote, “it is not always helpful to have things played out in the glare of publicity.”

A good example in this regard is the recently revealed UK media blackout on Prince Harry’s stint in Afghanistan. According to Williams, the BBC’s world news editor, UK media heads were approached last summer by the Ministry of Defence over the prince’s possible deployment to the frontlines.

“After five months of discussions, using the kidnap agreement as our model, the MoD and the UK media reached an understanding; we wouldn’t speculate or report on the prince’s deployments to minimise the danger to him and to others. In return, we’d get access to him before, during and after his time in Afghanistan. It was a voluntary agreement — any of the organisations could have agreed to leave at any time,” wrote Williams.

The agreement, arrived at through negotiation and not threat, reflects a certain maturity. A less sophisticated understanding of responsible journalism could have led to the knee-jerk reaction of invoking press freedom, while a ham-handed approach by the MoD may have led to an attempt to use force. As Williams wrote, “At its simplest, journalism is about telling people the things they don’t know. […] Our job normally is to make these things public, not keep them from you. But this was never just about Prince Harry’s safety, it was also about the security of the soldiers serving with him. No editor wants to be responsible for increasing the risk they already face.”

The media have the right to operate freely and without fear, but with that comes the duty to practice responsible journalism. So, Pakistan’s news channels must report on suicide bombings or the kidnap of army personnel, but they must also practice discretion while choosing their material in view of its impact. They must not senselessly follow the ‘if it bleeds, it leads’ maxim.

Meanwhile, those who seek to lay limits on the media must use logic and credible reasoning, not threat or blackmail. Those who find the cartoons offensive, protest, by all means, but please, don’t torch my car! Why not peacefully lobby the OIC, personally boycott Danish products or write to the editors instead of threatening to kill them or burning down one’s own cities?

The more violent course of action, after all, merely fuels the image of Islam that led to the commissioning of the cartoons in the first place.

Only through civilised debate can media practices mature here and across the world. Otherwise, the future holds increasingly violent tit-for-tat offensives, with all sides taking successively hardening positions.

Post-script: And, of course, there is the option of simply not watching or reading something that one finds offensive. Why attempt to police the world?

— hmumtaz@dawn.com